Exactly why is this the opinion among some people? Exactly why is homosexual sex or heterosexual premarital sex "only about indulgences", whereas casual marital sex (hence, not necessarily for procreation) is something totally OK? Or have I misunderstood it, is any kind of sex without the goal for procreation forbidden? If so, should all couples over the age of 40 refrain from sex?

How could a vow to live forever exclude that this couple indulge in things?

At 1/11/2016 3:34:32 PM, Jovian wrote:Exactly why is this the opinion among some people? Exactly why is homosexual sex or heterosexual premarital sex "only about indulgences", whereas casual marital sex (hence, not necessarily for procreation) is something totally OK? Or have I misunderstood it, is any kind of sex without the goal for procreation forbidden? If so, should all couples over the age of 40 refrain from sex?

How could a vow to live forever exclude that this couple indulge in things?

Casual sex usually refers to people jumping in and out of bed with different people.

I think one should have sex only in a steady relationship, married or unmarried, gay or straight.

At 1/11/2016 3:34:32 PM, Jovian wrote:Exactly why is this the opinion among some people? Exactly why is homosexual sex or heterosexual premarital sex "only about indulgences", whereas casual marital sex (hence, not necessarily for procreation) is something totally OK? Or have I misunderstood it, is any kind of sex without the goal for procreation forbidden? If so, should all couples over the age of 40 refrain from sex?

How could a vow to live forever exclude that this couple indulge in things?

Casual sex usually refers to people jumping in and out of bed with different people.

I think one should have sex only in a steady relationship, married or unmarried, gay or straight.

Damn then I used the wrong term. Well still, these conservatives talk about premarital sex and homosexual sex as filled with "lust and indulgences", no matter how steady relationships we are talking about.

Sex is naturally oriented to 2 things. Procreation and unity of the couple. Thus any sex must remain oriented in this manner and preserve both of these aspects in nature. This is why it (sex) is limited to married heterosexual couples.

The nature of the act has nothing to do with the realization of children, but rather that the integrity of the act stay within the natural law surrounding the act.

So whether or not the woman conceives as a result of sex has nothing to do with keeping the integrity of the act whole and in tact. Likewise if a young woman is unable to conceive or the man is shooting blanks, the integrity of the act is still preserved.

Sex is naturally oriented to 2 things. Procreation and unity of the couple. Thus any sex must remain oriented in this manner and preserve both of these aspects in nature. This is why it (sex) is limited to married heterosexual couples.

Baboons have sex but you don't see daddy baboons walking their daughter baboons down the aisle infront of all their baboon relatives and friends. You speak of nature as though you know what you're talking about.

The nature of the act has nothing to do with the realization of children, but rather that the integrity of the act stay within the natural law surrounding the act.

In evolutionary terms, the purpose of sex is to procreate. Are you a creationist?

So whether or not the woman conceives as a result of sex has nothing to do with keeping the integrity of the act whole and in tact. Likewise if a young woman is unable to conceive or the man is shooting blanks, the integrity of the act is still preserved.

Sex is naturally oriented to 2 things. Procreation and unity of the couple. Thus any sex must remain oriented in this manner and preserve both of these aspects in nature. This is why it (sex) is limited to married heterosexual couples.

The nature of the act has nothing to do with the realization of children, but rather that the integrity of the act stay within the natural law surrounding the act.

You could say heterosexual sex is natural for procreation, but you can't say it is natural for sex to be heterosexual when we can find alternatives to it in nature.

Sex is naturally oriented to 2 things. Procreation and unity of the couple. Thus any sex must remain oriented in this manner and preserve both of these aspects in nature. This is why it (sex) is limited to married heterosexual couples.

Baboons have sex but you don't see daddy baboons walking their daughter baboons down the aisle infront of all their baboon relatives and friends. You speak of nature as though you know what you're talking about.

Baboons are not humans. Humans form exclusive stable mating pairs. This happens in every culture and leads to the best results for the offspring.

The nature of the act has nothing to do with the realization of children, but rather that the integrity of the act stay within the natural law surrounding the act.

In evolutionary terms, the purpose of sex is to procreate. Are you a creationist?

It also bonds - see oxytocin. No I'm not a creationist, but am a theist.

So whether or not the woman conceives as a result of sex has nothing to do with keeping the integrity of the act whole and in tact. Likewise if a young woman is unable to conceive or the man is shooting blanks, the integrity of the act is still preserved.

May I ask what you mean by integrity of the act?

In the very simplest form, it involves the man ejaculating into the woman's womb.

Sex is naturally oriented to 2 things. Procreation and unity of the couple. Thus any sex must remain oriented in this manner and preserve both of these aspects in nature. This is why it (sex) is limited to married heterosexual couples.

The nature of the act has nothing to do with the realization of children, but rather that the integrity of the act stay within the natural law surrounding the act.

You could say heterosexual sex is natural for procreation, but you can't say it is natural for sex to be heterosexual when we can find alternatives to it in nature.

The basic or inherent features of something not the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals... nature has multiple meanings.

Sex is naturally oriented to 2 things. Procreation and unity of the couple. Thus any sex must remain oriented in this manner and preserve both of these aspects in nature. This is why it (sex) is limited to married heterosexual couples.

Baboons have sex but you don't see daddy baboons walking their daughter baboons down the aisle infront of all their baboon relatives and friends. You speak of nature as though you know what you're talking about.

Baboons are not humans. Humans form exclusive stable mating pairs. This happens in every culture and leads to the best results for the offspring.

The nature of the act has nothing to do with the realization of children, but rather that the integrity of the act stay within the natural law surrounding the act.

In evolutionary terms, the purpose of sex is to procreate. Are you a creationist?

It also bonds - see oxytocin. No I'm not a creationist, but am a theist.

So whether or not the woman conceives as a result of sex has nothing to do with keeping the integrity of the act whole and in tact. Likewise if a young woman is unable to conceive or the man is shooting blanks, the integrity of the act is still preserved.

May I ask what you mean by integrity of the act?

In the very simplest form, it involves the man ejaculating into the woman's womb.

If it is within marriage, is it really casual? Because most married couples love each other (or else they would get divorced) so "casual sex" would still be an expression of love to your spouse

Sex is naturally oriented to 2 things. Procreation and unity of the couple. Thus any sex must remain oriented in this manner and preserve both of these aspects in nature. This is why it (sex) is limited to married heterosexual couples.

Baboons have sex but you don't see daddy baboons walking their daughter baboons down the aisle infront of all their baboon relatives and friends. You speak of nature as though you know what you're talking about.

Baboons are not humans. Humans form exclusive stable mating pairs. This happens in every culture and leads to the best results for the offspring.

The nature of the act has nothing to do with the realization of children, but rather that the integrity of the act stay within the natural law surrounding the act.

In evolutionary terms, the purpose of sex is to procreate. Are you a creationist?

It also bonds - see oxytocin. No I'm not a creationist, but am a theist.

So whether or not the woman conceives as a result of sex has nothing to do with keeping the integrity of the act whole and in tact. Likewise if a young woman is unable to conceive or the man is shooting blanks, the integrity of the act is still preserved.

May I ask what you mean by integrity of the act?

In the very simplest form, it involves the man ejaculating into the woman's womb.

If it is within marriage, is it really casual? Because most married couples love each other (or else they would get divorced) so "casual sex" would still be an expression of love to your spouse

That is true. However, I believe that the OP was using "casual" in the sense as not directly intending to have a child result - rather than a loveless union.

Sex is naturally oriented to 2 things. Procreation and unity of the couple. Thus any sex must remain oriented in this manner and preserve both of these aspects in nature. This is why it (sex) is limited to married heterosexual couples.

Baboons have sex but you don't see daddy baboons walking their daughter baboons down the aisle infront of all their baboon relatives and friends. You speak of nature as though you know what you're talking about.

Baboons are not humans. Humans form exclusive stable mating pairs. This happens in every culture and leads to the best results for the offspring.

Both humans and other primates (also dolphins I think) do sex of recreational and procreating purposes. Sex of recretional purposes wasn't invented recently, it has always existed. In all cultures.

The nature of the act has nothing to do with the realization of children, but rather that the integrity of the act stay within the natural law surrounding the act.

In evolutionary terms, the purpose of sex is to procreate. Are you a creationist?

So whether or not the woman conceives as a result of sex has nothing to do with keeping the integrity of the act whole and in tact. Likewise if a young woman is unable to conceive or the man is shooting blanks, the integrity of the act is still preserved.

May I ask what you mean by integrity of the act?

In the very simplest form, it involves the man ejaculating into the woman's womb.

Sex is naturally oriented to 2 things. Procreation and unity of the couple. Thus any sex must remain oriented in this manner and preserve both of these aspects in nature. This is why it (sex) is limited to married heterosexual couples.

The nature of the act has nothing to do with the realization of children, but rather that the integrity of the act stay within the natural law surrounding the act.

You could say heterosexual sex is natural for procreation, but you can't say it is natural for sex to be heterosexual when we can find alternatives to it in nature.

Because someone finds an alternative to have sex with makes it natural? Who is the judge of that?

Sex is naturally oriented to 2 things. Procreation and unity of the couple. Thus any sex must remain oriented in this manner and preserve both of these aspects in nature. This is why it (sex) is limited to married heterosexual couples.

The nature of the act has nothing to do with the realization of children, but rather that the integrity of the act stay within the natural law surrounding the act.

You could say heterosexual sex is natural for procreation, but you can't say it is natural for sex to be heterosexual when we can find alternatives to it in nature.

Because someone finds an alternative to have sex with makes it natural? Who is the judge of that?

It an observation of the types of sex present in nature. No judge needed.

Sex is naturally oriented to 2 things. Procreation and unity of the couple. Thus any sex must remain oriented in this manner and preserve both of these aspects in nature. This is why it (sex) is limited to married heterosexual couples.

The nature of the act has nothing to do with the realization of children, but rather that the integrity of the act stay within the natural law surrounding the act.

You could say heterosexual sex is natural for procreation, but you can't say it is natural for sex to be heterosexual when we can find alternatives to it in nature.

Because someone finds an alternative to have sex with makes it natural? Who is the judge of that?

It an observation of the types of sex present in nature. No judge needed.

well sure it needs to be judged if we are to see what is considered natural. Someone has to decide

Sex is naturally oriented to 2 things. Procreation and unity of the couple. Thus any sex must remain oriented in this manner and preserve both of these aspects in nature. This is why it (sex) is limited to married heterosexual couples.

Baboons have sex but you don't see daddy baboons walking their daughter baboons down the aisle infront of all their baboon relatives and friends. You speak of nature as though you know what you're talking about.

Baboons are not humans. Humans form exclusive stable mating pairs.

So do other animals.

This happens in every culture and leads to the best results for the offspring.

Being married? Not necessarily. I know plenty of unmarried people who are amazing parents.

The nature of the act has nothing to do with the realization of children, but rather that the integrity of the act stay within the natural law surrounding the act.

In evolutionary terms, the purpose of sex is to procreate. Are you a creationist?

It also bonds - see oxytocin. No I'm not a creationist, but am a theist.

Yes, so that procreation becomes more likely, frequent and plentiful.

So whether or not the woman conceives as a result of sex has nothing to do with keeping the integrity of the act whole and in tact. Likewise if a young woman is unable to conceive or the man is shooting blanks, the integrity of the act is still preserved.

May I ask what you mean by integrity of the act?

In the very simplest form, it involves the man ejaculating into the woman's womb.

Sex is naturally oriented to 2 things. Procreation and unity of the couple. Thus any sex must remain oriented in this manner and preserve both of these aspects in nature. This is why it (sex) is limited to married heterosexual couples.

Baboons have sex but you don't see daddy baboons walking their daughter baboons down the aisle infront of all their baboon relatives and friends. You speak of nature as though you know what you're talking about.

Baboons are not humans. Humans form exclusive stable mating pairs. This happens in every culture and leads to the best results for the offspring.

Both humans and other primates (also dolphins I think) do sex of recreational and procreating purposes. Sex of recretional purposes wasn't invented recently, it has always existed. In all cultures.

Animals do not intentionally have sex for procreation. They instinctually have sex. For some species the instinct exist primarily at fertile times others not.

I am not denying that casual sex exists. A married couple does not have to decide that they want a child. They express their deep love in an intimate way, the natural outcome of which is a child. It is not that a child must be the aim of sex, but rather that one accepts and prepares for a child that may result from sex.

The nature of the act has nothing to do with the realization of children, but rather that the integrity of the act stay within the natural law surrounding the act.

In evolutionary terms, the purpose of sex is to procreate. Are you a creationist?

Precisely why you shouldn't have sex before marriage. Make sure you know the person well and deeply love them before introducing sex into the relationship.

No I'm not a creationist, but am a theist.

So whether or not the woman conceives as a result of sex has nothing to do with keeping the integrity of the act whole and in tact. Likewise if a young woman is unable to conceive or the man is shooting blanks, the integrity of the act is still preserved.

May I ask what you mean by integrity of the act?

In the very simplest form, it involves the man ejaculating into the woman's womb.

Sex is naturally oriented to 2 things. Procreation and unity of the couple. Thus any sex must remain oriented in this manner and preserve both of these aspects in nature. This is why it (sex) is limited to married heterosexual couples.

Baboons have sex but you don't see daddy baboons walking their daughter baboons down the aisle infront of all their baboon relatives and friends. You speak of nature as though you know what you're talking about.

Baboons are not humans. Humans form exclusive stable mating pairs.

So do other animals.

Never said they didn't

This happens in every culture and leads to the best results for the offspring.

Being married? Not necessarily. I know plenty of unmarried people who are amazing parents.

That you are an amazing parent without being married does not mean that the ideal is not a married couple. Children learn different things from each of the two parents. One forms their male ideals the other their female.

The nature of the act has nothing to do with the realization of children, but rather that the integrity of the act stay within the natural law surrounding the act.

In evolutionary terms, the purpose of sex is to procreate. Are you a creationist?

It also bonds - see oxytocin. No I'm not a creationist, but am a theist.

Yes, so that procreation becomes more likely, frequent and plentiful.

So whether or not the woman conceives as a result of sex has nothing to do with keeping the integrity of the act whole and in tact. Likewise if a young woman is unable to conceive or the man is shooting blanks, the integrity of the act is still preserved.

May I ask what you mean by integrity of the act?

In the very simplest form, it involves the man ejaculating into the woman's womb.

Sex is naturally oriented to 2 things. Procreation and unity of the couple. Thus any sex must remain oriented in this manner and preserve both of these aspects in nature. This is why it (sex) is limited to married heterosexual couples.

Baboons have sex but you don't see daddy baboons walking their daughter baboons down the aisle infront of all their baboon relatives and friends. You speak of nature as though you know what you're talking about.

Baboons are not humans. Humans form exclusive stable mating pairs. This happens in every culture and leads to the best results for the offspring.

Both humans and other primates (also dolphins I think) do sex of recreational and procreating purposes. Sex of recretional purposes wasn't invented recently, it has always existed. In all cultures.

Animals do not intentionally have sex for procreation. They instinctually have sex.

Sounds like any human couple who think that they don't want children at the moment or ever.

For some species the instinct exist primarily at fertile times others not.

I am not denying that casual sex exists. A married couple does not have to decide that they want a child. They express their deep love in an intimate way, the natural outcome of which is a child. It is not that a child must be the aim of sex, but rather that one accepts and prepares for a child that may result from sex.

That's your view, in my world there is birth control and abortions people are free to use.

The nature of the act has nothing to do with the realization of children, but rather that the integrity of the act stay within the natural law surrounding the act.

In evolutionary terms, the purpose of sex is to procreate. Are you a creationist?

Sex is naturally oriented to 2 things. Procreation and unity of the couple. Thus any sex must remain oriented in this manner and preserve both of these aspects in nature. This is why it (sex) is limited to married heterosexual couples.

The nature of the act has nothing to do with the realization of children, but rather that the integrity of the act stay within the natural law surrounding the act.

You could say heterosexual sex is natural for procreation, but you can't say it is natural for sex to be heterosexual when we can find alternatives to it in nature.

Because someone finds an alternative to have sex with makes it natural? Who is the judge of that?

It an observation of the types of sex present in nature. No judge needed.

well sure it needs to be judged if we are to see what is considered natural. Someone has to decide

Sex is naturally oriented to 2 things. Procreation and unity of the couple. Thus any sex must remain oriented in this manner and preserve both of these aspects in nature. This is why it (sex) is limited to married heterosexual couples.

Baboons have sex but you don't see daddy baboons walking their daughter baboons down the aisle infront of all their baboon relatives and friends. You speak of nature as though you know what you're talking about.

Baboons are not humans. Humans form exclusive stable mating pairs. This happens in every culture and leads to the best results for the offspring.

Both humans and other primates (also dolphins I think) do sex of recreational and procreating purposes. Sex of recretional purposes wasn't invented recently, it has always existed. In all cultures.

Animals do not intentionally have sex for procreation. They instinctually have sex.

Sounds like any human couple who think that they don't want children at the moment or ever.

Yet people have intellect that overrides instinct. Unless you want to be treated as nothing more than an animal...

For some species the instinct exist primarily at fertile times others not.

I am not denying that casual sex exists. A married couple does not have to decide that they want a child. They express their deep love in an intimate way, the natural outcome of which is a child. It is not that a child must be the aim of sex, but rather that one accepts and prepares for a child that may result from sex.

That's your view, in my world there is birth control and abortions people are free to use.

Artificial birth control violates the nature of the act. Funny... most abortion advocates say it isn't birth control (even though everybody knows that is exactly what it is). Abortion is the murder of an innocent human being.

The nature of the act has nothing to do with the realization of children, but rather that the integrity of the act stay within the natural law surrounding the act.

In evolutionary terms, the purpose of sex is to procreate. Are you a creationist?

It isn't a denial, but more of a we don't know. It attempts to say that the interactions are much more complex than just one chemical. To which I fully agree, but I'm answering you in a brief exchange of 500 or so characters. Obviously there are much deeper issues going on, but there is really no doubt that sex doesn't bond two people more tightly together.

Make sure you know the person well and deeply love them before introducing sex into the relationship.

I would personally agree that is a very good strategy with someone you want something serious with.

At 1/11/2016 3:34:32 PM, Jovian wrote:Exactly why is this the opinion among some people? Exactly why is homosexual sex or heterosexual premarital sex "only about indulgences", whereas casual marital sex (hence, not necessarily for procreation) is something totally OK? Or have I misunderstood it, is any kind of sex without the goal for procreation forbidden? If so, should all couples over the age of 40 refrain from sex?

How could a vow to live forever exclude that this couple indulge in things?

No one really cares, okay. We all have a hundred other things in our live that are much more important than wounded homosexuals. They are at the bottom of my list for concern. I don't expect them to lay awake for long nights because I have knee problems and can't go elk hunting anymore. You're also concerned about people's own thoughts. So what if many people find homosexual sex repulsive. Many people find my elk hunting repulsive. Do you think I'm somehow wounded by this? Not at all. I could care less. It seems that you are being fanned forward with propaganda and media brainwashing. Just be yourself. Is someone's secret sex life any of your concern?

Sex is naturally oriented to 2 things. Procreation and unity of the couple. Thus any sex must remain oriented in this manner and preserve both of these aspects in nature. This is why it (sex) is limited to married heterosexual couples.

Baboons have sex but you don't see daddy baboons walking their daughter baboons down the aisle infront of all their baboon relatives and friends. You speak of nature as though you know what you're talking about.

Baboons are not humans. Humans form exclusive stable mating pairs. This happens in every culture and leads to the best results for the offspring.

Both humans and other primates (also dolphins I think) do sex of recreational and procreating purposes. Sex of recretional purposes wasn't invented recently, it has always existed. In all cultures.

Animals do not intentionally have sex for procreation. They instinctually have sex.

Sounds like any human couple who think that they don't want children at the moment or ever.

Yet people have intellect that overrides instinct. Unless you want to be treated as nothing more than an animal...

People have different definitions of what is treating them bad or not though. Some people who have bought an English Lord title would feel insulted by anyone adressing them something else than a Lord. Two persons who consent to casual sex haven't done anything vile to each other since they do it together on each others consent.

For some species the instinct exist primarily at fertile times others not.

I am not denying that casual sex exists. A married couple does not have to decide that they want a child. They express their deep love in an intimate way, the natural outcome of which is a child. It is not that a child must be the aim of sex, but rather that one accepts and prepares for a child that may result from sex.

That's your view, in my world there is birth control and abortions people are free to use.

Artificial birth control violates the nature of the act.

Appeal to nature is a fallacy. People who have an honour to the so called nature also in 99% of cases have no problems with space travel, bringing a human body into a void it's not designated for being in, through the courtesy of a long list of man-made inventions.

Funny... most abortion advocates say it isn't birth control (even though everybody knows that is exactly what it is). Abortion is the murder of an innocent human being.

Even in cases like:

* The upcoming mother's life will be jeopardized if she has to give birth.* The upcoming mother was conceived through rape.* The upcoming mother can't afford to give the child a decent life.

?

The nature of the act has nothing to do with the realization of children, but rather that the integrity of the act stay within the natural law surrounding the act.

In evolutionary terms, the purpose of sex is to procreate. Are you a creationist?

It isn't a denial, but more of a we don't know. It attempts to say that the interactions are much more complex than just one chemical. To which I fully agree, but I'm answering you in a brief exchange of 500 or so characters. Obviously there are much deeper issues going on, but there is really no doubt that sex doesn't bond two people more tightly together.

Maybe.

Make sure you know the person well and deeply love them before introducing sex into the relationship.

I would personally agree that is a very good strategy with someone you want something serious with.

You know, like things that create children.

Yes, but people have their own definitions of serious relationships which not necessarily always include children.

At 1/11/2016 3:34:32 PM, Jovian wrote:Exactly why is this the opinion among some people? Exactly why is homosexual sex or heterosexual premarital sex "only about indulgences", whereas casual marital sex (hence, not necessarily for procreation) is something totally OK? Or have I misunderstood it, is any kind of sex without the goal for procreation forbidden? If so, should all couples over the age of 40 refrain from sex?

How could a vow to live forever exclude that this couple indulge in things?

No one really cares, okay.

Obviously you care since you reply me with 10 lines of text.

We all have a hundred other things in our live that are much more important than wounded homosexuals.

What the hell? The topic is not about homosexual feeling oppression, the topic is about why conservatives only think recreational sex is OK in heterosexual marriages.

They are at the bottom of my list for concern.

Good for you then. No one is forcing you to care about any political question.

I don't expect them to lay awake for long nights because I have knee problems and can't go elk hunting anymore.

What on earth has homosexuals and elks to do with each other?

You're also concerned about people's own thoughts.

Do you mean about their SPOKEN thoughts? If yes, in this case, I care for them because I thought many people make a hypocritical thing saying that the only condition people should have recreational sex in is in wedlock.

So what if many people find homosexual sex repulsive.

Yes, so what? I know many people who think this, even people who are pro LGBT. You are entitled to think whatever is disgusting. You are entitled to vomit blood when you see homoerotica. Just as well as you are entitled to vomit when you see heterosexual vomit porn or something like that. No one is enforcing you to cheer and get an erection when you see homosexual men kiss. Your problem seems to be that you have a mental loop of a gay porn video, which is your concern and not anyone else's.

But do you have to speak out every single thought? Or do you perhaps tell people with a tumour in their face that they are ugly?

Many people find my elk hunting repulsive. Do you think I'm somehow wounded by this? Not at all. I could care less.

Yes, good comparision. Elk hunters have been told since Biblical times that they are an abomination and thus do not deserve equal rights and thus oppressed. They are still oppressed in many countries today. Elk hunters have been bullied, shunned, assaulted, burned and killed since those times. Always remember those elk hunters who have to live in the closet since they would face being thrown out of the family and shunned, assaulted or killed if they would stand up for their hobby of elk hunting. Hitler killed 200 000 people only for being elk hunters.

It seems that you are being fanned forward with propaganda and media brainwashing.

Ironically, the same thing could just as well apply to YOU.

If not, why is a conservative against homosexuality always a man who has acquired those opinions of totally independent reasons, and a liberal who is pro-homosexual rights always a man who is a deluded sheeple under a curse of the liberal lobby?

Why would some opinions bear witness to self-thinking and some not?

Just be yourself. Is someone's secret sex life any of your concern?

First of all, I haven't said that I care about how people conduct their sex lives (as long as it doesn't involve spreading STDs and such of course).Second, I could just as well reply you with "right back at you", since you seem to have a problem with men sleeping with men.Third, my topic here is about why some conservatives only think it's okay for recreational sex to occur in marriages. Remember that this is something many of them don't keep for their own private lives. This is something that women are being called "sluts" and "whores" for not living according to these rules.

At 1/11/2016 3:34:32 PM, Jovian wrote:Exactly why is this the opinion among some people? Exactly why is homosexual sex or heterosexual premarital sex "only about indulgences", whereas casual marital sex (hence, not necessarily for procreation) is something totally OK? Or have I misunderstood it, is any kind of sex without the goal for procreation forbidden? If so, should all couples over the age of 40 refrain from sex?

How could a vow to live forever exclude that this couple indulge in things?

No one really cares, okay.

Obviously you care since you reply me with 10 lines of text.

We all have a hundred other things in our live that are much more important than wounded homosexuals.

What the hell? The topic is not about homosexual feeling oppression, the topic is about why conservatives only think recreational sex is OK in heterosexual marriages

You'll never change conservatives. You can use propaganda to calm them down, but they will never embrace homosexuality, just as they will never embrace Wiccanism, or Islam. I'm not sure what you're trying to do here. We have laws against oppressing homosexuals. .

They are at the bottom of my list for concern.

Good for you then. No one is forcing you to care about any political question.

I don't expect them to lay awake for long nights because I have knee problems and can't go elk hunting anymore.

What on earth has homosexuals and elks to do with each other?

It has a lot. Homosexuals shouldn't be hurt just because conservatives don't like their sex acts. I don't care what society you live in. There will always be a large faction of people who are repulsed by homosexual sex. All you can do is pass laws that protect homosexuals. We already have laws like this in the USA.

You're also concerned about people's own thoughts.

Do you mean about their SPOKEN thoughts? If yes, in this case, I care for them because I thought many people make a hypocritical thing saying that the only condition people should have recreational sex in is in wedlock.

Yes, spoken thoughts, or did you not know that there is a thing called freedom of speech? If you are ready to go down a road in which someone can't say they hate homo sex, then you also must be willing to go down the road in which saying anything against the government is wrong, or saying Global Warming is a hoax can get you five years in prison. The laws that you embrace, whether good or bad, will also be used against you.

So what if many people find homosexual sex repulsive.

Yes, so what? I know many people who think this, even people who are pro LGBT. You are entitled to think whatever is disgusting. You are entitled to vomit blood when you see homoerotica. Just as well as you are entitled to vomit when you see heterosexual vomit porn or something like that. No one is enforcing you to cheer and get an erection when you see homosexual men kiss. Your problem seems to be that you have a mental loop of a gay porn video, which is your concern and not anyone else's.

Yes, and you are also entitled to say what you want about it, whether in a newspaper, or a book, or out loud while walking down the street.

But do you have to speak out every single thought? Or do you perhaps tell people with a tumour in their face that they are ugly?No, I don't do this, nor do I insult homosexuals. That wasn't my point.

Many people find my elk hunting repulsive. Do you think I'm somehow wounded by this? Not at all. I could care less.

Yes, good comparision. Elk hunters have been told since Biblical times that they are an abomination and thus do not deserve equal rights and thus oppressed. They are still oppressed in many countries today. Elk hunters have been bullied, shunned, assaulted, burned and killed since those times. Always remember those elk hunters who have to live in the closet since they would face being thrown out of the family and shunned, assaulted or killed if they would stand up for their hobby of elk hunting. Hitler killed 200 000 people only for being elk hunters.

Let's begin with this: Every race and ideology has been butchered and raped at one time. Most people do not know that when Russia took over Germany after WW2, they raped and killed whenever they wanted. The average woman in Germany was raped by thirty men in the year 1945-1950. German men were almost always shot on the spot. I don't here anyone talking about this. Do you see my point? The whole nation is in an uproar about gays, yet they say nothing about even worse predicaments, which is why I get tired of hearing about it. It's like everyone jumped on a band wagon so that they could get good koombaya feelings.

It seems that you are being fanned forward with propaganda and media brainwashing.

Ironically, the same thing could just as well apply to YOU.

Not even close. I don't even read the paper, nor do I watch TV. All I do is write, read fictional novels, and study scientific papers. That's all I do. I hate the media, and the newspaper. Oh yeah, I grab an NFL football game once a week, I drink beer down at the pub, and I sleep with women. That's about it.

If not, why is a conservative against homosexuality always a man who has acquired those opinions of totally independent reasons, and a liberal who is pro-homosexual rights always a man who is a deluded sheeple under a curse of the liberal lobby?I'm not a conservative. I'm not a liberal. I'm a moderate. Also, I don't have an opinion about gays. I'm not against what they do, nor am I for it. It really doesn't matter to me, anymore than my problems would matter to you. In many ways I think my life was much harder than most gays.Why would some opinions bear witness to self-thinking and some not?

Just be yourself. Is someone's secret sex life any of your concern?

First of all, I haven't said that I care about how people conduct their sex lives (as long as it doesn't involve spreading STDs and such of course).Second, I could just as well reply you with "right back at you", since you seem to have a problem with men sleeping with men.

Again, your putting words in my mouth which I never said. Truly, I am repulsed by homosexual sex, but not because of religion. I am repulsed by where certain sex members are put. This is really the crux of why many people don't like homosexuality. It's not just religious in nature. Most people know what comes out of the human body, and they know the smell, and the diseases and germs within it, so they use logical reasoning to come to the conclusion that putting a sex organ in a place where waist comes out is a bad thing to do. That's just truth. Won't here about that in the newspaper. However, I know that some men are gay, so I do not judge them, nor do I think of them as bad people. However, they do things that I do not want to be around, and that's my choice in a free country.

Third, my topic here is about why some conservatives only think it's okay for recreational sex to occur in marriages. Remember that this is something many of them don't keep for their own private lives. This is something that women are being called "sluts" and "whores" for not living according to these rules.

My post had nothing to do with being against homosexuality. It had everything to do with me and others getting tired of being blasted by homosexuality in the media every time we turn around, and how it is upsetting, and in a sense brainwashing because it is constantly pushed on us. I feel the same way about religion, which is why I don't listen to AM radio anymore.

We all have a hundred other things in our live that are much more important than wounded homosexuals.

What the hell? The topic is not about homosexual feeling oppression, the topic is about why conservatives only think recreational sex is OK in heterosexual marriages

You'll never change conservatives. You can use propaganda to calm them down, but they will never embrace homosexuality, just as they will never embrace Wiccanism, or Islam. I'm not sure what you're trying to do here. We have laws against oppressing homosexuals.

Where do I say that I want to change conservatives? I just said that I wanted an explanation from them in this case.

I don't expect them to lay awake for long nights because I have knee problems and can't go elk hunting anymore.

What on earth has homosexuals and elks to do with each other?

It has a lot. Homosexuals shouldn't be hurt just because conservatives don't like their sex acts.

Exactly. Just like you wouldn't bash baseball players because you don't like baseball.

I don't care what society you live in. There will always be a large faction of people who are repulsed by homosexual sex.

Which they are entitled too and thus irrelevant for discussion.

All you can do is pass laws that protect homosexuals. We already have laws like this in the USA.

Yes.

Yes, spoken thoughts, or did you not know that there is a thing called freedom of speech?

Yes. And it's hard on this one. I mean, just because there is a freedom of speech, does that mean that you should be able to say "nice tits" to girls you don't know downtown?

If you are ready to go down a road in which someone can't say they hate homo sex, then you also must be willing to go down the road in which saying anything against the government is wrong, or saying Global Warming is a hoax can get you five years in prison. The laws that you embrace, whether good or bad, will also be used against you.

Yes, and you are also entitled to say what you want about it, whether in a newspaper, or a book, or out loud while walking down the street.

But do you have to speak out every single thought? Or do you perhaps tell people with a tumour in their face that they are ugly?No, I don't do this, nor do I insult homosexuals. That wasn't my point.

Let's begin with this: Every race and ideology has been butchered and raped at one time. Most people do not know that when Russia took over Germany after WW2, they raped and killed whenever they wanted. The average woman in Germany was raped by thirty men in the year 1945-1950. German men were almost always shot on the spot. I don't here anyone talking about this. Do you see my point? The whole nation is in an uproar about gays, yet they say nothing about even worse predicaments, which is why I get tired of hearing about it. It's like everyone jumped on a band wagon so that they could get good koombaya feelings.

Homosexuals receive bad treatment up to this date in the entire world. What you just said is right, but who is oppressing these people today? It is more of a matter today when it's still done. I mean, Irish people have received oppression in the US too, so why don't Americans nor Irish-Americans or Irish people care about this today? Because it doesn't happen to them anymore. Whereas gays are targets for hate crimes in the same amounts black people are.

It seems that you are being fanned forward with propaganda and media brainwashing.

Ironically, the same thing could just as well apply to YOU.

Not even close. I don't even read the paper, nor do I watch TV. All I do is write, read fictional novels,

Who contain politics very often. Or was for example Uncle Tom's Cabin not related to real life at all?

and study scientific papers.

Which could be biased.

That's all I do. I hate the media, and the newspaper. Oh yeah, I grab an NFL football game once a week, I drink beer down at the pub,

Don't your friends talk about political things?

and I sleep with women. That's about it.

If not, why is a conservative against homosexuality always a man who has acquired those opinions of totally independent reasons, and a liberal who is pro-homosexual rights always a man who is a deluded sheeple under a curse of the liberal lobby?I'm not a conservative. I'm not a liberal. I'm a moderate. Also, I don't have an opinion about gays. I'm not against what they do, nor am I for it. It really doesn't matter to me, anymore than my problems would matter to you. In many ways I think my life was much harder than most gays.Why would some opinions bear witness to self-thinking and some not?

Just be yourself. Is someone's secret sex life any of your concern?

First of all, I haven't said that I care about how people conduct their sex lives (as long as it doesn't involve spreading STDs and such of course).Second, I could just as well reply you with "right back at you", since you seem to have a problem with men sleeping with men.

Again, your putting words in my mouth which I never said. Truly, I am repulsed by homosexual sex, but not because of religion. I am repulsed by where certain sex members are put. This is really the crux of why many people don't like homosexuality. It's not just religious in nature. Most people know what comes out of the human body, and they know the smell, and the diseases and germs within it, so they use logical reasoning to come to the conclusion that putting a sex organ in a place where waist comes out is a bad thing to do. That's just truth.

So what, didn't you just say yourself that disgust shouldn't mean more things than disgust?

Won't here about that in the newspaper. However, I know that some men are gay, so I do not judge them, nor do I think of them as bad people. However, they do things that I do not want to be around, and that's my choice in a free country.

Yes. You are allowed to that. This is just taste and preferences. Just like you aren't a racist for dating inside your own race only.

Third, my topic here is about why some conservatives only think it's okay for recreational sex to occur in marriages. Remember that this is something many of them don't keep for their own private lives. This is something that women are being called "sluts" and "whores" for not living according to these rules.

My post had nothing to do with being against homosexuality. It had everything to do with me and others getting tired of being blasted by homosexuality in the media every time we turn around, and how it is upsetting, and in a sense brainwashing because it is constantly pushed on us. I feel the same way about religion, which is why I don't listen to AM radio anymore.

Sex is naturally oriented to 2 things. Procreation and unity of the couple. Thus any sex must remain oriented in this manner and preserve both of these aspects in nature. This is why it (sex) is limited to married heterosexual couples.

The nature of the act has nothing to do with the realization of children, but rather that the integrity of the act stay within the natural law surrounding the act.

You could say heterosexual sex is natural for procreation, but you can't say it is natural for sex to be heterosexual when we can find alternatives to it in nature.

Because someone finds an alternative to have sex with makes it natural? Who is the judge of that?

It an observation of the types of sex present in nature. No judge needed.

well sure it needs to be judged if we are to see what is considered natural. Someone has to decide

Sex is naturally oriented to 2 things. Procreation and unity of the couple. Thus any sex must remain oriented in this manner and preserve both of these aspects in nature. This is why it (sex) is limited to married heterosexual couples.

The nature of the act has nothing to do with the realization of children, but rather that the integrity of the act stay within the natural law surrounding the act.

You could say heterosexual sex is natural for procreation, but you can't say it is natural for sex to be heterosexual when we can find alternatives to it in nature.

Because someone finds an alternative to have sex with makes it natural? Who is the judge of that?

It an observation of the types of sex present in nature. No judge needed.

well sure it needs to be judged if we are to see what is considered natural. Someone has to decide

So the manner in which animals have sex paves the way to show humans what is natural. My dog eats her own feces does this pave the natural way humans should eat?

So the manner in what animals do never paves the way to show humans what is natural. My dog is a loyal and friendly creature who loves me, does this mean that humans shouldn't be loyal, friendly or loving?